Election 2016 Round Table Discussion: The DNC e-mail controversy would seem to suggest the DNC conspired to rig the outcome of the primary process? Should those involved be prosecuted? Is this treason? Regardless of the outcome of the election, should the DNC reform the “Super Delegate” system?

Gastonia, NC Correspondent-The Super Delegate system is the most blatant attempt ever by a political party to game the system and ensure that the person hand-picked by the party elite becomes the nominee. Bernie Sanders was right to be outraged, and I’d bet my horse that without the SDs it would have been a much different race. The knowledge that the preponderance of SDs were going for Clinton influenced the race well before the convention, and sapped support and votes that Sanders would have otherwise garnered. The SD system should be done away with and the process returned to a straight vote of duly elected states’ delegates.

However, calling this treason is ludicrous. All the Democratic candidates were aware going in of the way the game was rigged. They engineered their own catastrophe, and making them live with it is punishment enough. Treason is betraying one’s country, and I don’t think a bunch of befuddled Democrats who can’t figure out they just nominated their worst candidate ever are mentally capable of the offense.

While I think the Super Delegate system needs to be gotten rid of, I’ll confess I’m not exactly sure how to go about that. The two major parties have been given so bloody much power that they’re essentially countries unto themselves. They pass rules, enact procedures and follow practices that would seem at the very least silly and at worse insane to many, but they’re allowed to carry on in peace. There is no legislative fiat at play as far as I know.

Owatonna, MN Correspondent-Undermining the political process to influence the results in any manner is a direct violation of the spirit, if not the intent, of the policy of “one man, one vote.” Considering that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to establish a government that served all citizens rather than serving an elite group of wealthy or powerful, then the DNC has committed some sort of fraud or dishonest dealing, but it can’t be construed as treason.

It’s one thing to advocate individually for or against a politician, using one’s own money and voice. But it’s quite another to consolidate power and money inside a large political group and allow a small handful of individuals to wield power and control the money of that group and focus on one candidate by denigrating another.

Unfortunately, our campaign finance laws, as well as the entrenchment of the two-party system as the only way to play the political game, have distorted what is legal or not, so it may be difficult to prosecute someone unless a specific law has been broken. Also, any prosecution will likely be delayed until it’s too late to rectify the situation.

The DNC should reform the Super Delegate system if it wants to present the Democratic Party as truly being democratic and representing all its members. But since substantial reform will be at odds with their goal of controlling the nomination process as much as possible, it’s doubtful meaningful reform will happen. What is most needed is the Federal Election Commission stepping in to level the playing field for all political parties by enacting rules and policies that don’t allow individuals or small groups to amass unfair amounts of power and control over the political process.

Prescott Valley, AZ Correspondent-Whatever the outcome of the election, the DNC must seriously re-examine not only its platform that was presented to convention delegates but its ethical conduct concerning both primary, general and other election processes and procedures.

Those who conspired to rig the outcome of the primary process should be prosecuted simply to allow the DNC to right itself on a number of levels. Resignations and dismissals appear to be the short-term remedy as Debbie Wasserman Schulz resigned as DNC chairwoman and was replaced by interim chairwoman Donna Brazile. Soon after, Brazile dismissed three DNC officials, CEO Amy Dacey, communications directors Luis Miranda and chief financial officer Brad Marshall. Their ousters were encouraged in spite of praises for their work with the DNC. Brazile now faces her own demise as chairwoman through her firing from CNN as a contributor, which is connected to her alleged feeding of debate and town hall questions to Hillary Clinton. Possible indictment and prosecution of Brazile and others could follow in the wake of these findings.

Whether anyone connected with the rigging of Hillary Clinton’s nomination during the primary process will be prosecuted appears to be unlikely at this point; however, there may be a number of other resignations and firings in the mix, and Democrats associated with the DNC will most likely take the fall for the upper echelons of the party. Those in lower DNC positions who are knowledgeable of what occurred during the rigging need to come forward with what they know about the situation, including who was in charge of directing the operation and how it was implemented. Collusion with the media must be exposed as should the fundraising that occurred for Clinton and the DNC.

In order to set things right with Democrat party members and voters, the party has a lot to make up for in assuring its members that intervention by an independent investigator/ prosecutor will happen to get to the bottom of the continuing and troubling controversies that have impacted the party. If the party is to survive and retain any kind of validity, it must take action for its followers to remain a viable force in political terms.

The activity is treasonous in relation to subversion, deception, and duplicity with the attempts to place Hillary Clinton as the pre-determined primary candidate for the presidency. The other candidates involved in the primary process, particularly Bernie Sanders, should have contested the process rather than allowing the chicanery to disrupt the process. Challenges should have been made through Sanders as to the plot to smear him and hand the nomination to Clinton, but it seems that in the end Mr. Sanders capitulated to the party rulers and Hillary Clinton.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, the DNC should reform the “Super Delegate” system and has attempted to take the steps to do so through the elimination of super delegates (unelected party elites who make up 15 percent of the delegates) at their national convention. The measure was introduced through Bernie Sander’s supporters but failed; however, both supporters of Clinton and Sanders agreed to create a “unity commission” that would revise rules concerning the nomination process that included the role of superdelegates.

Democrat superdelegates are unpledged, which means they can support any candidate, and their inclination is to back the establishment candidate, which they did in Clinton. The Sander’s delegation was upset by the undemocratic process and challenged the superdelegate control for giving their “unpledged” support to Hillary Clinton.

The superdelegate concept was created in the 1980s for Democrat party officials to have increased control over the selection of a presidential candidate. The defeats of both Jimmy Carter and George McGovern in the past stimulated the process, but those opposed to this type of selection want to enable Democrat primary voters be the ones who make the decision as to who the party’s nominee will be, not superdelegates.

Many Democrats feel that changes to the superdelegate system need to be put into effect but whether that will materialize before the next major election is hard to predict. The party has a lot of soul searching to do but when superdelegates and unfairness rule the roost, and Hillary Clinton is “temporarily” in charge, manipulation is the byword.

John Adams

"Be not intimidated, therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the utmost freedom whatever can be warranted by the laws of your country, nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice."